Ohio student suspended for staying in class during National Walkout Day
Hmmmm.. kid decides to say screw the whole political BS being foisted on everyone by the loons, and stays in class (gee, isn't that where they are supposed to be?) and does not participate in school sponsored, taxpayer funded "wlakout" (really should be called "walkabout" as they were obviousy sponsored by the teacher who abandoned student and locked door). Gee, has the so called "education establishment played this whole fiddle for their own ends? Are our supposed "caring educators" actually using this to attack the Presisdent and government because their candidate didnot get elected? Why is a kid who actually WENT to school suspended, yet the entire frigging school NOT SUSPENDED, for missing class?
For example, in Ferguson, for days/weeks the media "omitted" the young man had just strong-arm-robbed a convenience store, they wanted "innocent and minding his own business". Trayvon Martin - the only photo they had of him was a 12-year old class picture, even though many recent ones were available on his Facebook page, the narrative was "young defenseless child walking to get a soda-pop" (but had recently been arrested for possession of stolen goods (jewelry) from Miami-Dade and that is why he was moved to live with dad).
Lest we also forget their targeting and ambush of police officers in Dallas.
My personal viewpoint, while I don't agree or condone the use of deadly force by police in many cases, that can also be minimized by not doing things that invite negative police contact. I also have a very hard time taking a stand one way or another when media portrayals of a case are missing key facts. Most people make it through life without 30 or 40 or 50 arrests. If you do have regular contact with police, the odds of a misunderstanding exploding into an incident obviously go up enormously.
Everyone is offered an education for free, it's a key to get out of the hood, change life's circumstances, etc. Some embrace it while many others are either too lazy for the long-road or prefer the 'cool' image of being a dumb-ass. Ultimately, everyone has an opportunity given to them at enormous cost to the taxpayers, and many choose to flush it down the drain (white or black).
I am hearing more use of the word "nigger" since Obama got elected. I remember when I was a kid, "nigger" in north carolina referred to black people who were really considered some sort of inferior human being. I never thought of blacks as inferior, they just have black skin.
Now, I have become a "culturist", and do discrimminate against certain cultures, hip-hop "entitled " black cultures being one of them. Another culture I dont like is white "entitled" people, especially females who think just because they have children, they are entitled to be taken care of.
And that’s a good reason why their bigoted ideology continues to spread rapidly. To them, you self censoring yourself is a big win.
I'm not a police officer. My only comparable experience was a few months of patrols in Rwanda, Kosovo, and Mogidishu when I was in the Air Force in the 90's. It's extremely tense when you come up on two people in the middle of a dispute, you have no idea which one is the aggressor or the victim, or if both are aggressors, or domestic, or what the case is. I have a lot of sympathy for the officers, we basically outsource our mental illness 'response' to the police in this country, they don't have the education or expertise to deal with it, we punish them when they misjudge a situation, and certain communities punish/blame/protest their actions while rarely or never doing anything in the way of volunteering to solve the problems.
For each of those cases - did any of the parents encourage the kids to be a policeman, firefighter, or doctor when they grew up? Did they do anything to point the kids in that direction? This is really about not only the degradation, but the complete failure of family structure in America. What we really need to do is stop blaming AR-15's, police, or any other inanimate object or societal norm when there isn't a father "in the picture". No dad? No blame.
We all remember the routine - particularly with Ferguson.. The kid was at first an aspiring track star and on his way to college. Whoops, he's 330 lbs.. no track star future. Whoops.. he may not have really been going to college. Whoops.. he may not have been just kicking it with his friends on the porch... well, maybe he just stole the beer and pretzels he was eating, but that was a misunderstanding. Video of him committing robbery? What robbery? Oh damn, the police officer was found innocent by a mixed-race jury - now time to burn the city to the ground in "protest".
Ok, so here's the problem with that approach - by the time the 3rd, 4th or 5th lie comes out, no one wants to listen to it, or give a damn anymore. Honestly, by the time the second lie came out, I was done. Why not just state the facts? He was walking down the street (or fleeing the store), he was a suspect and the officer had probably cause to stop him and detain him - but he had no reasonable cause to escalate the situation further. If the kid was trying to get away, let him go - call for backup, follow him with the police car. I don't know what happened, if the kid tried to go for the officer's weapon, the outcome was valid - but we'll never really know the truth because we crucify officers for making a bad decision when they have a ¼ of a second to do so. If they make a mistake in that ¼ second, we imprison them for life. We ask them to keep the peace, and keep our society intact. Rarely do we acknowledge how hard that is to do.
What I do know is that when the arguments always start with a lie, they are not getting their point made, they are just deteriorating what others think of their group and their position on issues.
I think the function of the police in disputes is basically to convince the parties that violent resolution can’t be tolerated and to get them to use courts or talking it out to settle things
I have recently watch on Netflix. “If you can’t pay, we take it away”. They do repossessions and evictions in England Their people deal with very upsetting scenarios but do it in a very good way. I wish our police could learn their approach
Building consensus isn't part of their job description, they are there to resolve disputes - in a major city - that is probably within the 18-25 minutes allowed per call, as they really only go from one call to the next.
As I said... protesting people asked to do a very difficult job doesn't solve the problem - when not chipping in something to help.
The show you are talking about on Netflix... those are not police officers, those are recovery agents - private contractors hired by their finance companies. They wear a uniform-looking thing, and can get assistance from police if it's hostile, but they are basically the same as the repo-guy here.
Cops, particularly traffic and drug stops are enforcing victimless crimes which I dont even think should be crimes. There needs to be a victim in my view before there can be a crime.
If a cop told me- "look, I am paid to do a job so I can feed my family, so I have to give you this victimless crime citation that I may not even agree with. You have a shot to get it thrown out in court if you want to go through the hassle, but I didnt pass the law" - I would respect the cop more than I do now.
Cops hardly ever prevent crime, they just investigate it and assess blame later. I am not sure that really is what I want as a citizen. No wonder so many people have guns. They dont trust the legal system here to protect them from crime. Far more effective to protect yourself at the time the crime is about to occur.
Same situation, I can drive through snow / sleet / deep-snow in the mountains without even blinking - so why should I troll behind their stupid-ass with their chains on the mustang & whatever? Shouldn't I just be able to hit the air-lift on the suspension and drive over the top of them because they are going far slower than the posted speed limit?
Speeding isn't a victimless crime - if everyone was driving whatever they wanted to - we would have far more traffic deaths. We restrict semi trucks to 55 here in California, no matter the posted limit, our semi-truck involved accidents are far-lower than the national norm, and jackknifes are almost unheard of.
I am far more concerned about the idiot drivers in Las Vegas, where I live, who cut in and out, make last minute decisions that require evasive maneuvers to avoid running into them. Those thing make me mad, and I have wanted to develop some sort of laser device that I could use to bore holes in the back of their cars that they wouldnt see until they got home. Illegal of course, so I havent done it.
Basically freeing onself of the need for trade with the society at large, and replacing that with immediate inventory of things that would be hard to obtain, plus setting up methods of providing food, water, electric power, somewhat remote shelter, defense, and basic medical care on a somewhat long term basis.
Then start moving to a less crowded location, with the idea of moving to the chosen remote location if/when socialism collapses our country.
To the extent this can be done in conjunction with other freedom loving peoples, all the better. But that group has to be small so as not to attract the attacks from collectivists who didnt prepare for the ravages of socialism.
I guess they call it the GULCH...
So here's the issue - speeding causes others to misjudge the distance. I live off a dead-end side road that T's into a state route 2-lane highway. The speed limit is 45 on the highway, but most drive well over 60-65. We don't have another route out of the neighborhood, that's it, and it's most frequently a left-hand turn. At 60 +/-, we can judge the distance well, though in the opposite direction there is only about 500 yards of visibility to a corner. Many, many, many times I have been nearly hit by someone going well over 70 around a mostly-blind corner with over a dozen similar streets that come out of residential neighborhoods. We've had a few youngsters in their own or their dad's corvettes wrapped around a tree - the last time was a politician's kid and they went into weeks of pavement analysis - blah blah blah - but he was doing over 65 around a corner on a wet road with a sports car driving with track tires.. suicide.. A month later the taxpayers are wasting 100s of thousands ripping up perfectly good pavement to replace with some ridiculous textured stuff to 'channel the water' presumably so people can drive faster, safely, in a residential area.
The downside of all of this - we live in a 7-figure neighborhood, and no one can go for a walk more than a block away - it would be stupid to walk along the 2-lane with idiots flying by.
Speed limits do multiple things - safety of pedestrians, traffic calming, quality of life, safety for areas with reduced visibility (and you would never know what you are about to hit).
Granted - Las Vegas (and Nevada for that matter) is rather devoid of wildlife... but you are speaking as though it is the gospel. Driving 85 mph in the dark in Minnesota where I grew up would be suicide - I've driven stretches of road of maybe 10 miles and seen 30 deer in the ditch (struck by cars).
Some residential streets have speed bumps in attempts to force drivers to go 25. The real solution is for drivers to be more responsible- I mean who in their right mind wants to endure all the hassle of an accident ? I sure dont.
People here are into what I call MTV driving. They are concerned only with getting there quickly and as such make last minute decisions that they havent thought through. They assume other drivers will just adjust and keep THEM safe. Not always possible though, and accidents here are EVERYWHERE as a result.
I dont think tickets work here. I have noticed that when there is an accident, BOTH parties get expensive tickets. One to the driver who is at 'fault", and the other for "failure to avoid an accident". Maybe THAT will work to encourage a bit more defensive driving.
Of course, all the autonomous vehicle has to do is be safer than the typical human driver is. But that idea will never fly in this litigious environment. Imagine the liability that would flow to car mfrs and software engineeres.
Sadly I fear the latter so we kill almost 100 people a day in car accidents but postpone automatic vehicles because someone might get killed.
Of course the idea of 'identical' programs is close to what is happening. I suspect different manufacturers would have different software but your car would regularly get updated as the algorithm gets refined based on experiences.
I would suspect that the autonomous car companies would even share problem examples since they all depend on the industry as a whole.
Of course the other cool thing is to be able to analyze the sensor readings. Currently it's just some guy saying "they came out of nowhere!".
Clearly a law firm would want that to happen so as to get a chunk of the windfall.
It might take legislation that limits the liability to actual damages. There still will be a problem assessing the responsibility between autonomous, non-autonomous cars and individuals.
In the case of the bicyclist, the bicyclist might have partial liability from their own negligence. I was party to a case where I pulled out of a blind driveway partially onto a sidewalk and a bicyclist struck the front of my car. The jury assessed me 60% at fault and the bicyclist 40%. He did have the right of way even if I couldn't see the sidewalk until I got partially on it. The landlord subsequently put up a mirror.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/03/22/...
Do they practice a diversity of ideological expressions? Or could it be that it is only pro-America ideas that they attack?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnO9J...
We had a sign made for you to hold up high. How can that sign be held up high when you are not there to hold it?
WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? Don''t you know that you are REQUIRED to lock step do what everyone else is doing?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qs35t...
Beware of stepping in to apprehend the mugger beating up the old lady. You'll suddenly find yourself locked up.
I won't even mention how you can be called a racist for having the wrong color of skin.
Again Heinlein foresaw this foolishness.
"historians call the second half of the twentieth century the "Crazy Years" ...
Public school teachers and state university professors who taught that patriotism was an obsolete concept, that marriage was an obsolete concept, that sin was an obsolete concept, that politeness was an obsolete concept--that the United States itself was an obsolete concept; School teachers who could not speak or write grammatically, could not spell, could not cipher ...
a laboratory example of what can happen to democracies, what has eventually happened to all perfect democracies throughout all histories. A perfect democracy, a 'warm body' democracy in which every adult may vote and all votes count equally, has no internal feedback for self-correction. It depends solely on the wisdom and self-restraint of citizens...which is opposed by the folly and lack of self-restraint of other citizens."
--- from To Sail Beyond the Sunset
Home schooling up to age 13 and then apprenticeship would be much better for most young people. Government has no business in education. It has failed its people.
They are a liberals. I asked him what he thought about Louis Farrakhan he said he didn't really know him. I said he was at the capital a lot with Obama and the democratic black caucus. When I said that he thought the Jews should be eliminated and that white people deserved to die. I was immediately censured by my daughter and the question was ignored. My thought is that this is a typical response. these liberals are like ostriches they have firm opinions with no room, time or interest for analysis.
FYI:
The capacity of the human mind for swallowing nonsense and spewing it forth in violent and repressive action has never yet been plumbed.
Revolt in 2100 (1953), postscript
At the time I wrote Methuselah’s Children I was still politically quite naive and still had hopes that various libertarian notions could be put over by political processes… It [now] seems to me that every time we manage to establish one freedom, they take another one away. Maybe two. And that seems to me characteristic of a society as it gets older, and more crowded, and higher taxes, and more laws. I would say that my position is not too far from that of Ayn Rand's; that I would like to see government reduced to no more than internal police and courts, external armed forces — with the other matters handled otherwise. I'm sick of the way government sticks its nose in everything, now.
The Robert Heinlein Interview, and other Heinleiniana (1973) by J. Neil Schulman (published in 1990)
I will accept the rules that you feel necessary to your freedom. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do. (The Moon is a Harsh Mistress)
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Robert_...
" I will accept.... That is how I see it also. If I am ethical and morally grounded acting in my own self interest . Screw them.
When I bought Stranger in a strange land I also bought the moon is a harsh mistress and time enough for love those are next up on the reading docket. What would you read next?
Those documents were compromises amongst intellectually compromised individuals. Once signed, the US government simply found ways to take over additional lands until the USA spanned the atlantic and pacific oceans. In the meantime, it got rid of the English, the French, the Spanish, The mexicans, the Indians, and the Mormons in the process.
So today, we see eminent domain, political corruption, all sorts of theft through taxes, and substantially debilitating regulations- all symptoms of an intellectually compromised constitution. We arent what we claim at all.
The Declaration was a political document listing the reasons for breaking with England, with a preamble summarizing what was already commonly understood about the rights of man, as the standard by which England's actions were rejected and explicitly showing why it was a philosophically based document. See Carl Becker's The Declaration of Independence: A Study in the History of Political Ideas.
The Declaration only talked about England for the obvious reason that England was ruling the colonies then. That does not mean that the principle of the rights of man only applied against England. It had nothing to do with British actions against Puritans who had landed here more than two centuries earlier.
The Constitution was a document specifying the functions and limits of a new national government. It was not a philosophical document because that was not its purpose, but like the Declaration, was philosophically based: It presupposed a political philosophy of individualism from the Enlightenment and was designed to protect against actions by the Federal government. Different ideas lead to different kinds of government.
The compromises in the framing of the Constitution were on matters of specifying government structure and procedures, not philosophy. It was not about freedom from England, whose rule had already been overthrown years before. Freedom from government interference in religion meant what it said, which was all religion. It did not furtively mean Mormons were excluded.
It was also not about freedom of Indian individuals versus others; it had some provisions for dealing with Indian tribes, who were still carrying on wars that were a pervasive physical threat at the time and had to be defended against. Neither the Constitution nor the new government got rid of English, French, Spanish, Mexican, Indian, or Mormon people. They did not "take over" the land to the Pacific; the jurisdiction of the American government replaced what was left of the rest by a freer system based on the rights of the individual and political freedom.
The Constitution and the new government were what they claimed to be. Today they are not because of the influence of contrary ideas, implemented by Pragmatism and Progressivism imported over centuries from Europe out of the counter Enlightenment. Those who do not understand the role of basic ideas in the course of a culture and a nation you will never understand the founding of this country and what happened to it since.
The language of “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” I think was a compromise to Not deal with the practice of slavery, where slaves were considered property. The phrase should have read “life, liberty, and property”.
My other point is that the actions of the people and the government were not so consistent with true freedom back then as they are inconsistent now.
Freedom of religion back then didn’t apply to Mormonism, and even now subjects Mormons to persecution for pokygamy
Not to say that the constitution was a bad thing, just that the flaws and compromises contained in it allowed for the government excesses of today.
I am thinking that there were many different opinions as to the role of government back then as there are now. I am trying to understand how we got from the lofty ideals promoted in our constitution to the current actions of government today.
The compromises they reached in the Constitution were over how the government was to be structured and run, not philosophy. There were not "as many different opinions on the role of government" then as now. There were no collectivists.
Freedom of religious belief applied to everyone. It never meant that citizens could do anything they wanted to in the name of religion, and the Constitution and bill of rights did not apply to the states then.
The ambiguities in the Constitution did not allow for government policy today; they were exploited along with re-interpretation in accordance with contrary philosophy of government that increasingly spread.
We got from the principles of the founding to the statism and collectivism of today because of the counter Enlightenment ideas that spread from Europe. The Constitution was not the cause; a better philosophical trend could have easily led to improvements in the Constitution through amendments.
A more comprehensive and consistent Enlightenment philosophy -- for example an explicit justification for egoism replacing the implicit egoist ethics in the right to life, liberty, property and one's own personal happiness -- would not have made much difference to the original Constitution, but it's lack made it harder to resist the counter-Enlightenment influence on ideas, which in turn led to the growth of statist government and courts 'rewriting' the Constitution through reinterpretation of what is proper.
Being married to two women was a religious custom with the mormons which hurt NO ONE. My point is that although the document said "religious liberty", it wasnt what happened pretty much right out of the gate.
The actions of the initial government violated many of the tenets of the constitution since the beginning of our country. Treatment of the Indians, Mexicans in Texas are just two examples. Running the mormons all over creation because of their polygamy is another.
Virginia was even set up as a "commonwealth" where the needs of the many were provided by the few.
Property rights today are violated by government because the establishment intellectuals don't recognize it, not because the Declaration didn't include it in the preamble as a particular kind of liberty and pursuit of happiness. Look at what they are doing to the second amendment and the others that are in the Constitution.
Freedom of religious belief never meant that anything could be done in the name of religion. Polygamy violated their concept of marriage regardless of religion. Outlawing polygamy within states did not control what version of the supernatural they worshiped, and state actions were not covered by the first amendment at the time.
Treatment of Indians and Mexicans was a result of violent warfare. They were serious problems at the time. Fighting them to stop the attacks was not a violation of the Constitution.
Virginia was had one of the best state constitutions. It doesn't matter that some states were called "commonwealths". It did not mean socialism. The "needs of the many" were not provided by the few. They took care of the genuinely poor at the local level as charity.
I do think that since the consititution was signed, the passages in it have been pretty routinely ignored in favor of collectivist ideology. Too bad it wasnt a consistently objectivist document. Might have lasted longer.
Let’s assume everyone was assigned a house provided by the state. And, each house came with two servants who will provide for all of your family’s needs.
Sound too good to be true?
There may even be free downloads as in my copy Mises Institute gives permission to reprint provided full credit is given.
So far all self-driving systems for cars and trucks are designed for require driver intervention in unusual situations.
How does a person intervene in the actions of an autonomous politician on statist auto-pilot?
https://hotair.com/archives/2018/03/2...
(See top picture)
But what does any of this have to do with the thread you started? You've hijacked your own thread, so why not throw a chicken into the pot, too?
The passive driver monitoring the controls looked like she was asleep or staring at her lap, then looked up and was quickly startled to see what was already happening. But it looks like it would have been too late to avoid hitting the woman walking her bike no matter what the car or driver might have done differently (other than not be there) the way she suddenly appeared in the road out of the dark shadows.
There were a lot of sensors on the car and multiple cameras so more is yet to be learned. So far I have seen only two of the video angles.
Here is Toyotas system in use today:
https://www.toyota.com/safety-sense/f...
Such a system should have prevented this.
The object has to be isolated, classified and tracked for its trajectory, before a decision is made without being over sensitive and in time. Avoiding false positives is the hard part: avoiding collisions is easy -- just stop and don't ever move (like guaranteed blocking of spam by not ever allowing incoming mail).
If sensors were using only visible light it would be much harder in the dark; if it uses infrared or some other wavelength like radar, which we expect, it would detect more than a person would see in the dark, which is an improvement, but it still has to resolve, identify and track, then decide in time.
The programming may or may not have been using too high a threshold or something else may have gone wrong. That is why the passive driver is there to intervene during testing, where they know problems are expected. In this case the passive driver could not have seen the victim suddenly appear out of the dark in time even if she had been looking for it. They could give her infrared glasses but, like the control system, she would have to be carefully trained (more cookies versus shocks) to look at the road instead of at her lap or dozing off. Testing is best done using normal humans in focus and with the required attention span.
Automatic driving and other complex tracking systems use multiple sensors with their signals mathematically combined in the interpretation, including location using maps or GPS for driving. They are not intended to work everywhere, where accurate location data isn't available or driving conditions are too complex. The Toyota collision avoidance system is much simpler than that, and does not work for vehicles suddenly appearing in cross traffic or smaller objects like bicycles.
The woman walking the bicycle across the path of the car appeared in front of the car too suddenly to be able to stop in time. It would have required detection and tracking of the object off to the side well before it reached the trajectory of the car. Humans do that all the time with visible light and can do it in the dark with IR goggles (if awake and not staring at their lap).
It is not good when a test driver for a system still in development appears to be asleep at the wheel even if in this case it appears she could not have avoided the collision no matter what she had done. It will be interesting to see what the investigation turns up and whether the driver was being as careless as it looks like in the video and whether or not the accident was in fact unavoidable. They reportedly have a lot more sensors and videos than the two videos so far released.
I want to know if the school got their funding for that day from the government, or if it was counted as a "snow day"? If the teachers should have been in the classroom, then the boy should have been aloud to be there. At least locally, when religious ed is offered, those who go to that off grounds, recognize those who do not, have a right to go to a specified study hall. Ut was bit supervised to allow all those kids to walk out, and miss yet another day of what little education they get these days. I think the school system should be sued over this attempt to force political views on students, like some Russian classroom.
We know Soros is funding gun opposition, maybe this is Russian collusion as well!
If the school was sponsoring this event; then, the teachers were required to be in the crowd monitoring the whole thing. Therefore, as the child would be unmonitored the school would have a problem with his actions.
The question is, why would the school be sponsoring this? This is where the parents should get a lawyer and make them explain why they would support this. Of course the school can argue that as this was a widely publicized occurrence. That it was less disruptive to the educational process to go along with it, as opposed to resisting the whole thing.
Which is were the lawyer should step in an say that they are trampling this child's 1st Amendment rights by punishing him for not participating.
They don't want to discuss anything.
He was teaching things far beyond math.
Different schools have different policies. My school was pretty firm on it, although the teacher was perfectly happy letting me work on the project by myself he wasn't allowed to.
My only memory of the first grade is sitting on a stool in front of my class for being snitched out over something while the teacher was out of the classroom.